Why 2 Years?

Very few long-term studies into the potential health
impacts of GM crops have been carried out. The rat feeding studies conducted by
the GMO industry to support regulatory authorization rarely extend beyond 90
days,[1]
[2]
a subchronic period[3] that is not able to detect
long-term (chronic) health effects. Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) has argued against the need for trials longer than 90 days.[4]

Ninety days in a rat is equivalent to only around 7 years
in human terms, based on the 3-year average natural lifespan of a laboratory rat.[5]
Two years, the length of Séralini’s study, is two-thirds of the natural lifespan of
a rat, mirroring the long-term exposure of people to GM food crops.

A search conducted by the French food safety agency ANSES
for long-term studies comparable to the Séralini study and focusing on
commercialized glyphosate-tolerant GM crops identified a grand total of two
studies. Neither was performed by the GMO developer company prior to commercialization
of the GMO.[6] One found toxic effects
from feeding GM soy to mice[7]
and the other is only available in Japanese and cannot be evaluated by the
international scientific community.[8]

Even industry’s short 90-day studies have
generated evidence of statistically significant early impacts of GM crops on
multiple organ systems,[9]
[10]
indicating the need for longer studies.

GMO proponents often cite a review examining the results
of 24 long-term studies to show GMOs are safe to eat over the long term.[11]
However, this claim is misleading. The 24 studies do not provide evidence for
the long-term safety of commercialized GMOs for human consumption, since they
include:

1.
Studies that found toxic effects and signs of
toxicity in the animals fed a GM diet, which are dismissed by the review
authors as being of “no biological or toxicological significance”

2.
Studies in which the animals eat the GM diet
for only a small proportion of their natural lifetime and which are therefore
not long-term at all

3.
Animal production studies on livestock, which
do not examine health effects in detail but focus on effects of the GM diet on issues
of interest to farmers, such as weight gain and milk yield

4.
Studies on animals with a different digestive
system and metabolism from humans, such as cows and fish

5.
Studies carried out by GMO industry-sponsored
authors, which can be biased.

Moreover, the authors of the review use unscientific
double standards to dismiss studies that find toxic effects and signs of
toxicity from GM feed, while accepting at face value only those studies that
conclude the GM feed is safe.

The review’s conclusion that “GM plants are
nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in
food and feed” is not justified by the evidence provided. In fact, some of the
studies present evidence that GM plants are not safe to eat.

Given the lack of long-term safety research
on GMOs, Séralini’s study offers rare and valuable data on this important
public health issue. A limited sampling of study results is reported in Séralini
et al (2012), with further results from this large trial expected in
forthcoming papers.